Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-server

by com.koongo

restore_feed

Idempotent

Restore a soft-deleted feed and re-export it. Use this when a feed was deleted (delete_feed) — get_feed (and other feed actions) report a deleted feed as error 'feed_deleted', which is recoverable; list_feeds simply omits it while deleted — or when the user asks to bring a feed back. The feed id stays valid after deletion; this reverses it. Returns {feedId, action:'restore', status:'restored'}. feed_id from the feed_deleted error or an earlier list_feeds; project_id OPTIONAL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
feed_idYes
project_idNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description reveals meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the feed id stays valid after deletion, the operation reverses the deletion, and the tool re-exports the feed. It also provides the exact return payload, which is important because there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place: routing guidance, recovery semantics, return shape, and parameter sourcing are all packed in without fluff. The dense punctuation is acceptable because the content is high-value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the operation, recovery semantics, return value, and parameter sourcing. The only material gap is the missing semantic explanation for the optional project_id parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It tells the agent where to get feed_id (from the feed_deleted error or an earlier list_feeds) and marks project_id as optional, but it never explains what project_id means or when it should be supplied, leaving a partial gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore a soft-deleted feed and re-export it.' It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like delete_feed by explaining the soft-deletion lifecycle and how other feed actions treat a deleted feed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: when a feed was deleted, when get_feed returns the recoverable 'feed_deleted' error, when list_feeds omits the feed, or when the user asks to bring a feed back. This gives an agent concrete routing signals and explains the behavior of related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized around distinct resources (ads, marketplaces, feeds, orders, rules, sources) with clear action verbs, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate near-pairs like get_feed_status vs ad_status or set_feed_filter vs set_feed_attribute_filter. A few similarly named status/action pairs (e.g. ad_status vs get_ad, run_ad_item_action vs run_ad_operation) require careful reading, but overall the purposes are separable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, set_*, run_*, test_*). Minor deviations like ad_status and marketplace_status (noun-based status tools) and koongo_knowledge break the pattern slightly, but the convention is clearly recognizable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

At 105 tools, the surface is extreme and far beyond the 50+ threshold, even for a complex e-commerce integration domain. Much of the bloat comes from systematic triplication across ads, marketplaces, and feeds (e.g. three nearly identical map_*_attribute tools, three list_*_items, three get_*_report) that a generic resource parameter could have consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle of feeds, ads, marketplaces, order connections, rules, and imports, including create/read/update/delete, status monitoring, item-level actions, validation, repair, and restore. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete for standalone order connections and limited update capabilities for some entities, but these are workable and do not create dead ends for the core workflows.

Resources